It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sealing
I've always been curious as to what the official story
was concerning the announcement from BBC of a building that hadn't fallen yet?
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by RoScoLaz
Thanks to RoScoLaz here, I did a little digging and uncovered a rat. Considering my own belief that 9/11 was an inside job, it's a little heartbreaking to reveal to the members of ATS that this video is a HOAX, designed to draw out the gullibility of 9/11 truthers.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Seriously, it doesn't take much to shut people up. A few thousand dollars, the promise of a promotion, and the safety of your children and family members as well as your own security is more than enough to ensure silence on your part.
If you don't believe me, look at the Barry Jennings article posted in this thread.
Originally posted by Pilot
reply to post by AfterInfinity
what a strange little man the guy in the wife-beater is...
Hold on. Here's the same clip but not inverted like Eddy Current says.
Originally posted by exponent
There is no 'official story' of this, the BBC isn't even American. They repeated a Reuters report without sufficiently fact checking it. That's all there is to it.
Originally posted by DerekJR321
It's far easier to spread a lie then it is to unveil the truth.
And that has been a huge problem with 9/11. People like this 'man' that faked this video. He has done nothing to further his views. The people out there spreading disinformation, fake theories, outright lies. It brings nothing to the table.
People can believe the official story if it is their prerogative. The question I have always posed to them is, what is the harm in further investigating the attacks? I never get a straight answer. I've heard everything from "you should trust the government" to "it is disrespectful to the dead". I don't see how trying to find the truth is disrespectful to those who died on 9/11.
There are so many unanswered questions, and they are simply brushed to the side by those who believe the 9/11 Commission reports. The simple ties alone, between the commission and the Bush administration should have negated them from even participating.
I do not believe the official story. It is so full of holes. However, I am also of the belief that it wasn't our government who was involved in it either. I do believe there were a select few who had a part in it (Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc), but I really don't believe Bush had anything to do with it. I really believe completely that it was a Mossad operation, conducted to bring us into war in the middle east.
Originally posted by ANOK
So why did Reuters send out a press release saying WTC7 had collapsed before it did?
Whether the BBC messed up, or Reuters, doesn't change the fact that WTC7 was reported as collapsed before it did, and then miraculously it does exactly what was predicted.
Obviously someone new WTC 7 was going to collapse.
No steel framed building had ever collapsed from fire before 911, so who could ever predict something that had never happened before? Steel framed building do not normally collapse from fire, so there was no precedence for such a claim.
You can make all the excuses you want, but you can't change the fact that an event that could not have been expected (unless someone knew) was reported before the even actually happened.
You are using an unproven and unprovable accusation to "prove" another unproven and unprovable accusation. This isn't actually proving anything. It's just circular logic in that you're just repeating the same statement in different terms in an attempt to support itself.
In the real world where whistle blowers leak all sorts of compromising things to Wikileaks and Anonymous can track down the POS who stalked a Canadian teenager into committing suicide, the odds that even more critically important coverups like this imagined 9/11 conspiracy can remain covered up is close to nonexistant.
Originally posted by DerekJR321
People can believe the official story if it is their prerogative. The question I have always posed to them is, what is the harm in further investigating the attacks? I never get a straight answer. I've heard everything from "you should trust the government" to "it is disrespectful to the dead". I don't see how trying to find the truth is disrespectful to those who died on 9/11.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by GoodOlDave
You are using an unproven and unprovable accusation to "prove" another unproven and unprovable accusation. This isn't actually proving anything. It's just circular logic in that you're just repeating the same statement in different terms in an attempt to support itself.
Should I post those MIB videos, complete with testimony?
I'm not surprised nothing really significant has cropped up. The United States isn't that stupid, which is what has me suspicious in the first place. A bunch of mean with wire cutters managed to hijack an airplane and send it straight into a business district without any kind of interference. Doesn't sound like a cut-and-clean deal to me.
Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
edit on 6/12/12 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by iwilliam
I'm kind of confused as to why this would be controversial. I was under the impression that the official story was that WTC7 was, indeed, brought down by a controlled blast. Why would evidence of that be anything shocking?
And here, of course, is what every 9/11 conspiracy theorist already knew, that this twit denied out of ignorance.
I almost wish I had the twit's email, so I could send this to him.